Flakeloaf:Qwertyette: circumcision is bad and you should feel bad./cut.//sex hurts.///not enough skin down there so sex causes it to rip/tear.////will also impact me when I finally get my surgery.//yes I'm TG.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

dude, she's getting the ENTIRE THING CHOPPED OFF. That's not anecdote OR data. That's the loneliest part of the bell curve, out where the buffalo roam and the wild things howl at the moon.

willfullyobscure:Flakeloaf: Qwertyette: circumcision is bad and you should feel bad./cut.//sex hurts.///not enough skin down there so sex causes it to rip/tear.////will also impact me when I finally get my surgery.//yes I'm TG.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

dude, she's getting the ENTIRE THING CHOPPED OFF. That's not anecdote OR data. That's the loneliest part of the bell curve, out where the buffalo roam and the wild things howl at the moon.

If the she has a penis then getting it chopped off sounds like a pretty danged good idea to me even if she was born with it. Because doncha know, my opinion totally matters. I do hope the pain from a botched operation isn't the only deciding factor here though or we could be in for some sad.

gingerjet:Parents make all sorts of decisions for their children that have a wider impact on their lives than whether to circumcise or not.

I see fark threads all the time complaining about parents who allow their teenage girls to get cosmetic surgery. So why are so many of those same people completely accepting of cosmetic surgery being performed on newborns?

misanthropologist:gingerjet: I was sort of alright with the article until we got to this part:

"I would like Oprah to come to her senses and realize that all children have a fundamental human right to keep all their genitalia and to decide for themselves if anything gets cut off," Callender said Wednesday.

Parents make all sorts of decisions for their children that have a wider impact on their lives than whether to circumcise or not.

/really don't understand some guys obsessiveness over other peoples foreskin//haters in 3...2...

Partly it's about gender symmetry - if female genital cutting is horrific and needs to be stopped, then male genital cutting is also horrific and needs to be stopped. It's fascinating that the anti male-circumcision folks really focus on a child's inherent right to bodily integrity and to consent, as an individual, to modification, whereas the anti female-genital cutting crowd tend to focus not on agency but on the necessity of bodily integrity. Double standards... fun times. Some great anthropological writing on this stuff too.

Not sure I'd have my baby boy circumcised, if I had a baby boy. I might let him decide to do it at 14, like a Maasai.

The problem with that is, female circumcision is done to remove the woman's ability to enjoy sex, whereas male circumcision doesn't have the same effect. In fact one could argue that male circumcision actually enhances sexual arousal.

the ha ha guy:gingerjet: Parents make all sorts of decisions for their children that have a wider impact on their lives than whether to circumcise or not.

I see fark threads all the time complaining about parents who allow their teenage girls to get cosmetic surgery. So why are so many of those same people completely accepting of cosmetic surgery being performed on newborns?

Assuming for a moment that your claim that parents have their infant boys circumcised solely for "cosmetic" reasons is true, when was the last time you saw someone trying to organize a demonstration against cosmetic surgery for teenage girls?

Flakeloaf:willfullyobscure: Flakeloaf: Qwertyette: circumcision is bad and you should feel bad./cut.//sex hurts.///not enough skin down there so sex causes it to rip/tear.////will also impact me when I finally get my surgery.//yes I'm TG.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

dude, she's getting the ENTIRE THING CHOPPED OFF. That's not anecdote OR data. That's the loneliest part of the bell curve, out where the buffalo roam and the wild things howl at the moon.

If the she has a penis then getting it chopped off sounds like a pretty danged good idea to me even if she was born with it. Because doncha know, my opinion totally matters. I do hope the pain from a botched operation isn't the only deciding factor here though or we could be in for some sad.

Actually, they kinda turn it inside out, not chop it off. The more material, the better. Sadly, I have very little material (if I owned a sports car, it would need to be 30 feet long and have 2,000 HP).

Foreskin is actually shown to have more nerve endings in it then the glans, so yes, you're losing something. It also aids in elasticity and when there is a lack of lubrication. There is a reason humans evolved with it, and not without it. That is, unless you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Even if you did, didn't God make us out of his own Image? so why fark it up?

tirob:Assuming for a moment that your claim that parents have their infant boys circumcised solely for "cosmetic" reasons is true, when was the last time you saw someone trying to organize a demonstration against cosmetic surgery for teenage girls?

I wasn't speaking of protests, I was speaking of the hypocrisy of those on Fark who go to one thread and condemn cosmetic surgery for 14 year old girls, then go to the next thread and hand out hero tags to those who perform cosmetic surgery on their newborn boys.

And if I don't want to be circumcised because sex and masturbation feel like rubbing sandpaper on my penis... Should I just jump in my time machine and kidnap myself? Use a dildo and imagine what sex is supposed to feel like? Get a sex change operation and hope for the best?

/Tried everything, including the suggestions of multiple doctors//Now I've just accepted my 'forever alone' status until someone comes up with a foreskin transplant, which likely won't be available until I'm too old to have sex anyway

Bizarrely, slightly less pseudo-scientific than other nonsense. Human foreskin fibroblasts are actually a useful experimental model system for cell motility, wound healing, and so on. Even used as feeder cells for stem cells.

the ha ha guy:tirob: Assuming for a moment that your claim that parents have their infant boys circumcised solely for "cosmetic" reasons is true, when was the last time you saw someone trying to organize a demonstration against cosmetic surgery for teenage girls?

I wasn't speaking of protests, I was speaking of the hypocrisy of those on Fark who go to one thread and condemn cosmetic surgery for 14 year old girls, then go to the next thread and hand out hero tags to those who perform cosmetic surgery on their newborn boys.

tirob: If you don't want your boy circumcised, don't have him circumcised.

And if I don't want to be circumcised because sex and masturbation feel like rubbing sandpaper on my penis... Should I just jump in my time machine and kidnap myself? Use a dildo and imagine what sex is supposed to feel like? Get a sex change operation and hope for the best?

/Tried everything, including the suggestions of multiple doctors//Now I've just accepted my 'forever alone' status until someone comes up with a foreskin transplant, which likely won't be available until I'm too old to have sex anyway

There are actually devices to "grow" it back. Much like the way a mastectomy patient will have a sort of balloon placed under the breast to regain skin so brest implants can be inserted. It stretches the skin which causes new cells to grow.

the ha ha guy:tirob: Assuming for a moment that your claim that parents have their infant boys circumcised solely for "cosmetic" reasons is true, when was the last time you saw someone trying to organize a demonstration against cosmetic surgery for teenage girls?

I wasn't speaking of protests, I was speaking of the hypocrisy of those on Fark who go to one thread and condemn cosmetic surgery for 14 year old girls, then go to the next thread and hand out hero tags to those who perform cosmetic surgery on their newborn boys.

I get it. My point, in case you missed it, is that the fellow who is organizing this protest has no counterparts among the "hypocrites" you describe, who, however hypocritical they may be, don't waste their own and everyone else's time with stunts like the man who is organizing this protest is doing.

the ha ha guy:And if I don't want to be circumcised because sex and masturbation feel like rubbing sandpaper on my penis... Should I just jump in my time machine and kidnap myself? Use a dildo and imagine what sex is supposed to feel like? Get a sex change operation and hope for the best?

I am not a doctor and the only advice I could possibly give you is to see someone who specializes in this sort of thing. There must be other men out there, circumcised and not, who have this sort of problem.

lake_huron:arrely, slightly less pseudo-scientific than other nonsense. Human foreskin fibroblasts are actually a useful experimental model system for cell motility, wound healing, and so on. Even used as feeder cells for stem cells.

It's stupid. How are someone else's dead ground up cells going to do anything about wrinkles.

tirob:I get it. My point, in case you missed it, is that the fellow who is organizing this protest has no counterparts among the "hypocrites" you describe, who, however hypocritical they may be, don't waste their own and everyone else's time with stunts like the man who is organizing this protest is doing.

Whether by negative social connotation, a reluctance on the part of doctors, the relatively high cost of the procedure, or any number of other factors, cosmetic surgery on young girls is rare. So even if a group were to protest the procedure, they would be about as effective as a protest against cannibalism.

Circumcision, on the other hand, is so common that some doctors do it anyway without asking the parents, and many consider being uncircumcised to be a negative trait, and those who dislike the procedure are demonized and portrayed as infringing on the rights of the parents to make the choice (despite the fact that the parent's choice inherently removes that same right from the boy who is circumcised).

As for your earlier point about "assuming" that it's only a cosmetic procedure, who needs to assume when the pro-circumcision crowd makes that exact claim to defend their point of view?

They also use human foreskins to grow tissue for skin grafts like Apligraf. One article, that looked pretty dubious and conspiracy theory/wackjob at first glance, had these facts that turned out to be true...

"one boy's foreskin can grow bio-engineered skin in a lab to the size of a football field. That's 4 acres of new skin or around 200,000 units of manufactured skin, which is enough skin to cover about 250 people and sells at $3,000 a square foot. Considering that there are 1.25 million neonate foreskins circumcised each year in the U.S alone, this translates to one of the most lucrative trades, if not THE most lucrative trade, in human body parts ever in the history of humanity."

Pretty shady dealings considering these companies are making millions, yet doctors are charging you for the procedure that provides the product.

Whether by negative social connotation, a reluctance on the part of doctors, the relatively high cost of the procedure, or any number of other factors, cosmetic surgery on young girls is rare. So even if a group were to protest the procedure, they would be about as effective as a protest against cannibalism.

We don't know any of that for sure. There have been protests against the practice of cosmetic surgery of the vulva for women here and there. I don't know how common a practice that is.

Circumcision, on the other hand, is so common that some doctors do it anyway without asking the parents, and many consider being uncircumcised to be a negative trait, and those who dislike the procedure are demonized and portrayed as infringing on the rights of the parents to make the choice (despite the fact that the parent's choice inherently removes that same right from the boy who is circumcised).

Citation for all of this please? I'm pretty sure that any doctor (or moyl) around here who performed any procedure on a kid without the parents' permission would run the risk of losing his/her license pronto. You may find that people in Israel and in many Muslim countries would ostracize uncircumcised boys and men (girls and women in those places are often taught not to have sexual relations with such men), but I've never heard of such ostracism being common in this country. And whom did I demonize or accuse of infringing on anyone's rights?

the ha ha guy:As for your earlier point about "assuming" that it's only a cosmetic procedure, who needs to assume when the pro-circumcision crowd makes that exact claim to defend their point of view?

I think you may be putting words in the mouth of the "pro-circumcision crowd." Circumcision is usually defended first and foremost by citing its benefits in preventing the spread of STDs, particularly in places where water is either scarce or polluted, and where condoms don't keep well in the heat.

tirob:Citation for all of this please? I'm pretty sure that any doctor (or moyl) around here who performed any procedure on a kid without the parents' permission would run the risk of losing his/her license pronto.

In the 70's, when circumcision rates were around 80%, it was just assumed that a boy would be circumcised unless the parents requested otherwise. (At least that's the excuse they gave to my parents when it was done to me.)

It may not be as common today, but a quick google search brings up plenty of recent examples, few lawsuits, almost no legal victories (except for botched operations), and literally no cases of a doctor losing their license.

tirob:You may find that people in Israel and in many Muslim countries would ostracize uncircumcised boys and men (girls and women in those places are often taught not to have sexual relations with such men), but I've never heard of such ostracism being common in this country. And whom did I demonize or accuse of infringing on anyone's rights?

I was speaking of the overall trend, not any individual comment. And the ostracism is declining in recent years, but it still exists in many areas.

tirob:I think you may be putting words in the mouth of the "pro-circumcision crowd." Circumcision is usually defended first and foremost by citing its benefits in preventing the spread of STDs, particularly in places where water is either scarce or polluted, and where condoms don't keep well in the heat.

None of those conditions exist within the USA, so why use that as a defense?

And people in favor of circimsicion often rrefer to it as a cosmetic procedure rather than a medical one, even in this very thread.

willfullyobscure:It's really a minor cosmetic difference and women like it cut, so its gonna be around for a while.

But since fark commenters aren't usually considered an academic source, here's what a few doctors say:

http://www.circumcisioncenter.com/faq.htm"Q: For what reasons do you perform circumcisions?A: The most common reasons for which I perform circumcisions are:· Cosmetic appearance"

http://www.srsmiami.com/circumcision.html"A circumcision is perhaps the highest cosmetic calling given to a urologist."

http://www.circumcision-clinic.com/"Our qualified surgeons carry out circumcisions on all age groups of males, including cosmetic circumcisions for adult males."

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/31/health/he-asadults31"More common are men at the other end of the spectrum. Dr. David Cornell, a urologist who runs the Circumcision Center in Atlanta, sees men who want a circumcision because they prefer the appearance and because they want to feel more comfortable socially.

"I hear a thousand times a year from men who don't feel that they look like most other men in the locker room. In our society, there's an overriding preference for circumcision," says Cornell, who performs 250 procedures a year on men who, for cosmetic reasons, want a circumcision or a revision to one they don't think looks right.

Circumcision constitutes 30% of Cornell's urology practice. He charges $2,500 for the procedure and does not take insurance. Though frequently attacked by anti-circumcision activists, he says, "I'm doing a cosmetic operation on a consenting adult. Why he's doing it is his business.""

I'm not denying that there may be medical benefits to the procedure, but it seems that many people cite cosmetic appearance rather than health benefits as the main reason for circumcision.

Qwertyette:Flakeloaf: willfullyobscure: Flakeloaf: Qwertyette: circumcision is bad and you should feel bad./cut.//sex hurts.///not enough skin down there so sex causes it to rip/tear.////will also impact me when I finally get my surgery.//yes I'm TG.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

dude, she's getting the ENTIRE THING CHOPPED OFF. That's not anecdote OR data. That's the loneliest part of the bell curve, out where the buffalo roam and the wild things howl at the moon.

If the she has a penis then getting it chopped off sounds like a pretty danged good idea to me even if she was born with it. Because doncha know, my opinion totally matters. I do hope the pain from a botched operation isn't the only deciding factor here though or we could be in for some sad.

Actually, they kinda turn it inside out, not chop it off. The more material, the better. Sadly, I have very little material (if I owned a sports car, it would need to be 30 feet long and have 2,000 HP).

Foreskin is actually shown to have more nerve endings in it then the glans, so yes, you're losing something. It also aids in elasticity and when there is a lack of lubrication. There is a reason humans evolved with it, and not without it. That is, unless you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Even if you did, didn't God make us out of his own Image? so why fark it up?

In summary, go eat a hotdog wrapped in bacon.

Well, good luck with everything. My circumcision worked out great, I'm sorry yours did not. Have you looked into jelqing and rejuvenation? I've seen...impressive...things done with Vitamin E oil and regular training.

If it's any consolation, I'm a (more or less)straight male with a huge thing for ultra femme traps, and I wouldn't think twice about hitting on you before or after your GRS. Your junk is probably right up my alley. Or not, but you know what I mean.

the ha ha guy:tirob: Citation for all of this please? I'm pretty sure that any doctor (or moyl) around here who performed any procedure on a kid without the parents' permission would run the risk of losing his/her license pronto.

In the 70's, when circumcision rates were around 80%, it was just assumed that a boy would be circumcised unless the parents requested otherwise. (At least that's the excuse they gave to my parents when it was done to me.)

I'll take your word for it as far as the norms that existed where you were born, but I stand by what I said when it comes to the current state of events around here.

the ha ha guy:the ostracism is declining in recent years, but it still exists in many areas.

Nobody I have ever met cares one way or the other. Indeed, I had never heard of such "ostracism" existing here until you brought it up.

the ha ha guy: Circumcision is usually defended first and foremost by citing its benefits in preventing the spread of STDs, particularly in places where water is either scarce or polluted, and where condoms don't keep well in the heat.

None of those conditions exist within the USA, so why use that as a defense?

1. Because STDs exist in the US.2. Because even in the US, there are places where clean water is hard to come by and condoms don't keep well.3. Because American boys and men sometimes travel, or are sent, outside the US.

tirob:I'll take your word for it as far as the norms that existed where you were born, but I stand by what I said when it comes to the current state of events around here.

Many news articles and lawsuits state otherwise.

tirob:Nobody I have ever met cares one way or the other. Indeed, I had never heard of such "ostracism" existing here until you brought it up.

And I've seen uncircumcised guys teased by circumcised guys and outright rejected by women.

With that being said, the plural of anecdote is not evidence, so neither of our experiences prove any national cultural norm.

tirob:1. Because STDs exist in the US.2. Because even in the US, there are places where clean water is hard to come by and condoms don't keep well.3. Because American boys and men sometimes travel, or are sent, outside the US.

1. Condoms are available at virtually every convenience store in the country, and many places give them out for free. If you have to rely largely on a surgical procedure to remain STD free, chances are you're going to end up with an STD anyway.

2. You're right, it may be harder for uncircumcised men to keep themselves clean if they're stranded in the desert for weeks on end, but the vast majority of those born in the USA never encounter such conditions in the first place, certainly not to the extent that it's necessary to circumcise 80-90% of boys born within the country.

3. See #2.

As for the actual medical stats, circumcision is no more effective than a condom. Meanwhile, circumcision presents a non-zero risk of complications resulting from the surgery itself, sometimes leaving the patient effectively sterile.

For Barry in Africa, born to a poor family in a country where condoms are all but banned, circumcision is probably a good idea. For Richard in Delaware, born to a third generation business owner and had a 6-digit trust fund to his name before he even had a name, circumcision likely isn't going to be his last line of defense against STDs or hygiene. Yet only one of these families has to deal with a nurse who refuses the wishes of the parents and only attempts to get permission after the procedure is finished.

the ha ha guy: tirob: 1. Because STDs exist in the US.2. Because even in the US, there are places where clean water is hard to come by and condoms don't keep well.3. Because American boys and men sometimes travel, or are sent, outside the US.

1. Condoms are available at virtually every convenience store in the country, and many places give them out for free. If you have to rely largely on a surgical procedure to remain STD free, chances are you're going to end up with an STD anyway.

2. You're right, it may be harder for uncircumcised men to keep themselves clean if they're stranded in the desert for weeks on end, but the vast majority of those born in the USA never encounter such conditions in the first place, certainly not to the extent that it's necessary to circumcise 80-90% of boys born within the country.

3. See #2.

As for the actual medical stats, circumcision is no more effective than a condom. Meanwhile, circumcision presents a non-zero risk of complications resulting from the surgery itself, sometimes leaving the patient effectively sterile.

For Barry in Africa, born to a poor family in a country where condoms are all but banned, circumcision is probably a good idea. For Richard in Delaware, born to a third generation business owner and had a 6-digit trust fund to his name before he even had a name, circumcision likely isn't going to be his last line of defense against STDs or hygie ...

I may not have made myself clear. To avoid STDs, nothing beats confining your sexual activity to partners who have been tested as clean. The second best line of defense is without a doubt a condom. Circumcision is not, repeat NOT, a method of avoiding STDs. All it can do is improve your chances of not contracting an STD by an increment, and in many cases that increment is probably small. I don't have the figures handy, but I believe that there have been studies that showed that circumcised men in southern Africa contract HIV at a rate that is something like 20 percent lower than uncircumcised men.

Even if studies of this type existed for the US, my guess is that anti-circumcision people would claim that the numbers are cooked. I would nevertheless suspect that even here, getting circumcised reduces the risk of getting an STD by a small increment. I will tell you this: If a doctor told me that my infant son's risk of contracting an STD in later life (and perhaps passing it on) would be reduced by five percent, or two percent, or even one percent, by having him circumcised, but that there is a risk of one hundredth of one percent that circumcision will cause him some sort of sexual dysfunction later on in life, I myself would tell that doctor to go ahead and clip the kid's foreskin. You may come out differently on this based on your own experience, but given what I understand to be the rarity of circumcision-related problems such as you report, I wouldn't hesitate.

tirob:Circumcision is usually defended first and foremost by citing its benefits in preventing the spread of STDs

tirob:I will tell you this: If a doctor told me that my infant son's risk of contracting an STD in later life (and perhaps passing it on) would be reduced by five percent, or two percent, or even one percent, by having him circumcised, but that there is a risk of one hundredth of one percent that circumcision will cause him some sort of sexual dysfunction later on in life, I myself would tell that doctor to go ahead and clip the kid's foreskin.

From the various studies I've found, when used in conjunction with a condom, circumcision gives virtually no protection against STDs. The only condition I've found that is definitively reduced is penile cancer, which has a rate of 1 in 100,000 uncircumcised men.

From those same studies, the risk of developing a permanent complication as a result of a circumcision is about 1 in 10,000. (Note that I'm specifically excluding treatable conditions from this number)